Page 1 of 2

website

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:16 am
by romanista
look nice,

but you really are addicted to flash, aren't you?

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:28 am
by mr.zzapback
Indeed.
Still, much better than the Imagine home site though.
I especially like the page flicking feature, (seriously!) I wish I could browse all mags online like that.*

On the other hand, Live's website was truly awful, let's not forget that.


*looking pictures I mean. At that kind of resolution there's not much chance of reading anything, except for loud headers, hehe.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:07 am
by CraigGrannell
/puts on web designer hat, fresh from editing my new web design book

It looks nice, but that's about it, as far as I'm concerned. I despite sites that waste my time by "building" in this fashion, and even on a Windows PC on broadband, the site runs significantly more slowly than it would had it been designed in straight HTML (and the sample page is extremely irritating in terms of usability).

Annoyingly, the site's code is pretty search engine-unfriendly, too (which will mean fewer people "stumbling" on to the site), and there are methods of making Flash-based content help a little more in this area.

/end of grump-me-do

Re:

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:44 am
by romanista
CraigGrannell wrote:/puts on web designer hat, fresh from editing my new web design book

It looks nice, but that's about it, as far as I'm concerned. I despite sites that waste my time by "building" in this fashion, and even on a Windows PC on broadband, the site runs significantly more slowly than it would had it been designed in straight HTML (and the sample page is extremely irritating in terms of usability).

Annoyingly, the site's code is pretty search engine-unfriendly, too (which will mean fewer people "stumbling" on to the site), and there are methods of making Flash-based content help a little more in this area.

/end of grump-me-do
that;s what i said, wasn't it (only not as extensive)

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:45 am
by CraigGrannell
Yeah, but I reserve the right to be grumpy at length!

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:08 am
by mr.zzapback
Hehe :lol:

Flash!

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:23 am
by tinylee
Hello all,

Firstly cheers for your comments on the look of the site and forum – glad you like it. I haven’t had a chance to browse through your posts until now.

Just thought I’d drop a quick post in here to explain why we went for the Flash option.

I completely agree with all you say on the search engine and loading front, but this was the compromise that I was prepared to take in order to give you an initial site on the launch day of the mag, offering back issues, contacts etc… and of course this forum

As you are aware we are still in early days of growth with Imagine and the Interactive Dept within the company is no different. Flash for us was the easiest and quickest way of tackling the mammoth task of creating six launch sites for each magazine that stood out from the other competing publishing companies.

We will of course be expanding / redesigning / improving code as time goes by so please be patient and of course feel free to send me suggestions. Its just the beginning :D

Hope this cleared thing up a bit :D

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:05 am
by mr.zzapback
Alright, perfectly understandable and all that. Ta.

Btw, why is the mag advertised with a 4 quid price tag??
(main page , bottom right corner)

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:10 am
by AdamDawes
Hi tinylee,

My only suggestion would be not to use Flash. :) The content and presentation all seems fine to me; if it looked exactly the same but in simple HTML (without all the animations and building up each page a piece at a time) I'd think it was great.

I always find Flash sites a real turn-off, and the fact that it takes five times as long to display each page doesn't help either. I realise you guys have had a lot of work to do in very little time and I applaud you for finishing it, but I do suspect you'll put a lot of people off visiting the site with it in its current form.

Incidentally, has anyone mentioned that the "About the mag" page states in the bottom/right that issue 19 costs £4.00? It definitely says £4.99 on my copy.

Re:

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:16 am
by mr.zzapback
AdamDawes wrote:
Incidentally, has anyone mentioned that the "About the mag" page states in the bottom/right that issue 19 costs £4.00? It definitely says £4.99 on my copy.
Umm, ti-dum, ti-dum... (posted this +/- 5 minutes earlier, hehe) 8)
mr.zzapback faster than light wrote: Btw, why is the mag advertised with a 4 quid price tag??
(main page , bottom right corner)

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:30 am
by retroisland
Hey am I the only person here that actually prefers websites built in Flash? I think this site is great - big improvement on the live publishing one.

Re:

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:42 am
by Markie
AdamDawes wrote:Incidentally, has anyone mentioned that the "About the mag" page states in the bottom/right that issue 19 costs £4.00? It definitely says £4.99 on my copy.
LOL... It's a website typo... We're on it!

You lot are VERY eagle-eyed! :D

Re:

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:51 am
by CraigGrannell
retroisland wrote:Hey am I the only person here that actually prefers websites built in Flash?
Probably not. However, I was coming at this from a usability, accessibility and flexibility standpoint, in terms of general users. While this magazine's target market will be more technically literate than average, Flash websites can still pose problems, not least the display issue highlighted elsewhere. In my opinion (having been doing this web design lark for nearly a decade now), Flash has its uses, but unless your site requires it, don't bother. If the Retro Gamer site had lots of embedded little retro-style games, that'd be cool and warrant Flash. But as it's a standard website, a straight HTML-based design would be more efficient, accessible and search-engine friendly.

I'm also not a fan of "fixed height" designs, because designers then try and cram in everything into a tiny space, or you end up with loads of "click for next page"-type things. The animations on the site are also rather too frequent and actually distract the eye when content is being explored.

One thing I should perhaps point out is that Flash isn't necessarily a bad thing, and hybrid sites (for example, a Flash masthead and HTML/CSS-based page content) can work fairly well if built with care.

Anyway, I understand the reasoning of the design team ("get something up there—quick!) and it'll be interesting to see how the site evolves.

Re:

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:16 am
by mr.zzapback
Markie wrote:
You lot are VERY eagle-eyed! :D
Wait! Why is there a shadow effect behind the (semi peeled off) sticker on the frontcover, eh eh? Ever seen shadow behind a sticker? 8) :wink:

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:38 am
by Markie
Shadows... Hey it's peeling off that's why! :wink:

Or is it that I'm creating the mag in InDesign, and well done shadows just look cool! :D